Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 02/28/2024 has a total of 23 claims pending in the application; there are 2 independent claims and 21 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas.
Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
The claims are directed to the abstract idea of a method of access based random-access scheme. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than:
(i) Mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or
(ii) Recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claim does not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claim does not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claim does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. To overcome this rejection, applicant needs to add the inventive idea, e.g., what amounts to “significantly more” to the claimed limitations. In another words, receiving a first PRS in a first set of resources from a first UE then receiving a second PRS in a second set of resources from a second UE in order to accomplish what solution, or what is being solved by preforming these steps.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, el al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEI et al. Publication No. (US 2022/0330348 A1) in view of GUPTA et al. Publication No. (US 2021/0168869 A1).
Regarding claim 1, WEI teaches a base station (base station 105-a FIG.6) comprising:
a receiver (base station 105 includes a receiver 1210 [0184] FIG.12) configured to:
receive, from a first user equipment (UE) device (first user terminal (UE) 115-a FIG.6), a plurality of copies of a first Random-Access Request Signal (RRS) transmitted in a first set of resources selected from a Random-Access Channel (RACH) resource (the base station 105-a may receive from UE 115-a, a first random access sequence request over one or more (e.g., the first subset of) random access occasions selected from the first set of random access opportunities (determined or selected by the UE at step 655), the UE 115-a transmits one or more repetitions of the first random access sequence to the base station, the first random access configuration may configure different frequency resources for the random access occasions as shown in step 635 [0146] 680-FIG.6), and
receive, from a second UE device (second user terminal (UE) 115-b FIG.6), a plurality of copies of a second RRS transmitted in a second set of resources selected from the RACH resource (the base station 105-a may receive from the UE 115-b, a second random access sequence associated with a first SSB of the set of SSBs over a random access occasion (e.g., one or more of a second subset of random access occasions) of the second association period. the random access occasion may be selected from the second set of random access opportunities based on an index of the first SSB (e.g., as the UE 115-b may have determined, or selected, at 660) [0147] 680-FIG.6)
WEI does not explicitly teach a RACH resource pool.
GUPTA teaches a RACH resource pool (GUPTA: the base station (200) creates one or more pools of RACH resources for UE's at different heights, and RACH preambles with respective permitted cyclic shifts for each of these corresponding pools [0084-88] FIGs.9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified WEI by the teaching of GUPTA to have a resource pool for the UE in order for the UE to select a random access resource pool based on selection criteria (e.g. UE type, beam, height, location, velocity) and sends the random access signal applying the corresponding default TA in that resource pool TA (GUPTA: [0088-90] FIG.7).
Regarding claim 2, WEI teaches the base station of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of copies of the first RRS contains a pointer to a resource location for each of the other copies of the first RRS (different SSBs may be mapped to different sets of resources to be used as time division multiplexed RACH resources, or different SSBs may be mapped to overlapping sets of time resources for RACH transmissions (e.g., FDM'd RACH resources). Additionally, or alternatively, different SSBs may further correspond to different spatial resources, for example, to different directional downlink transmit and uplink receive beams [0084-85] FIG.2).
Regarding claim 3, WEI teaches the base station of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of copies of the first RRS indicates a Synchronization Signal Block (SSB) Index (In both the first transmission timeline 200-a and the second transmission timeline 200-b, certain resources, such as time-frequency resources are associated with certain SSB indices, allocated for different ones of a first SSB index (e.g., SSB Index 0), a second SSB index (e.g., SSB Index 1), a third SSB index (e.g., SSB Index 2), a fourth SSB index (e.g., SSB Index 3), as well as unallocated resources [0089-90] FIG.3).
Regarding claim 4, WEI teaches the base station of claim 3, wherein the SSB Index is associated with a distance of the first UE device from the base station (The SSBs may be associated with one or more of the multiplexed RACH occasions independently for the high-tier devices and for the low-tier devices, That is, the SSBs may be mapped to the RACH occasions configured for the high-tier UEs (e.g., in an increasing order), and may also be mapped independently to the RACH occasions configured for the low-tier UEs [e.g., based on location of the device or how far from the base station [0103-106] FIG.3)
Regarding claim 5, WEI teaches the base station of claim 3, wherein the SSB Index is associated with a direction of the first UE device from the base station (In both the first transmission timeline 200-a and the second transmission timeline 200-b, certain resources, such as time-frequency resources (e.g., sets of time resources, frequency resources, or a combination) may be associated with certain SSB indices. For example, certain subframes are shown to be allocated for different ones of a first SSB index (e.g., SSB Index 0), a second SSB index (e.g., SSB Index 1), a third SSB index (e.g., SSB Index 2), a fourth SSB index (e.g., SSB Index 3), as well as unallocated resources [0085-86] FIG.4).
Regarding claim 6, WEI teaches the base station of claim 1, further comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit, to the first UE device prior to the first UE device entering a sleep state, at least one message containing RACH resource pool configuration information (the base station 105 may indicate to one or more UEs 115 (e.g., in the RACH configuration or other configuration information) a set of parameters including, for example, a number of transmitted SSBs, a number of SSBs per RACH occasion, a number of contention-based RACH preambles per SSB for one or more RACH occasions, and other like information [0084-86] FIG.5).
Regarding claim 7, WEI teaches the base station of claim 6, wherein the transmitter is further configured to transmit the at least one message containing RACH resource pool configuration information in System Information Block (SIB) messaging (The base station 105 may broadcast the RACH configuration in a system information message, such as a SIB1 message, which may be common to all the UEs 115 (e.g., common to Light UEs 115) within a coverage area 110 of the base station 105, and which may indicate a set of information to facilitate RACH procedures. [0080-81] FIG.1).
Regarding claim 8, WEI teaches the base station of claim 6, wherein the transmitter is further configured to transmit the at least one message containing RACH resource pool configuration information in at least one dedicated Radio Resource Control (RRC) message (a Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol layer may provide establishment, configuration, and maintenance of an RRC connection message between the UE 115 and the base station 105 [0065] FIG.6).
Regarding claim 9, WEI teaches the base station of claim 6, wherein the RACH resource pool configuration information contains RACH resource allocation information based at least partially on a mapping to one or more Synchronization Signal Block (SSB) Indices (the base station 105 may indicate to one or more UEs 115 (e.g., in the RACH configuration or other configuration information) a set of parameters including, for example, a number of transmitted SSBs, a number of SSBs per RACH occasion, a number of contention-based RACH preambles per SSB for one or more RACH occasions [0084-85] FIG.5).
Regarding claim 10, WEI teaches the base station of claim 1, wherein the receiver receives a first copy of the first RRS and a first copy of the second RRS in a same RACH resource, the base station further comprising: a controller (communication manager 1205 FIG.12) configured to remove interference caused by the first copy of the first RRS from the same RACH resource in which the first copy of the first RRS and the first copy of the second RRS were received (Beamforming may be achieved by combining the signals communicated via antenna elements of an antenna array such that signals propagating at particular orientations with respect to an antenna array experience constructive interference while others experience destructive interference. The adjustment of signals communicated via the antenna elements may include a transmitting device or a receiving device applying certain amplitude and phase offsets to signals carried via each of the antenna elements associated with the device [0060-61] FIG.6).
Regarding claim 11, WEI teaches the base station of claim 1, further comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit, to the first UE device, an uplink grant containing a time-adjustment command (the UE may independently map the indices of the RACH configuration to corresponding SSBs based on, for example, a given or determined pattern that is to be achieved. According to the example transmission timeline 400 shown in FIG. 4, the low-tier UE may realize a relatively improved likelihood for its RACH transmissions, and any repetitions of the RACH transmissions, to result in successful RACH procedures granting the UE access to the channel with a specific time domain per slot or subframe [0121-122] FIG.5).
Regarding claims 12-23, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-11, where the difference used is the limitations were presented from the “User Equipment” side with a transmitter (WEI: FIG.8 ) and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims and interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Conclusion
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELNABI O MUSA whose telephone number is (571)270-1901, and email address is abdelnabi.musa@uspto.gov ‘preferred’. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Bates, can be reached on 571-2723980. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system? Contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDELNABI O MUSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472